Herbert Purdy’s comments on Alison Saunders’s feminist campaign to influence juries to increase the number of men convicted for rape

Our thanks to Herbert as always. He comments in response to a piece we posted earlier today, concerning recent comments made by Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecution, and the Met Commissioner:

“Alison Saunders’ announcement last week was probably one of the most dangerous and far-reaching acts of misuse of power imaginable by an officer of the state prosecution apparatus. The stench of feminism is all over this.

What is really going on here is the rolling-out of the latest feminist party line on rape, driven by Alison Saunders (and indeed, her predecessor, Keir Starmer – currently advising the Labour Party about this, and soon to be a Labour MP, it seems – quelle surprise!) of overcoming the so-called ‘Rape Myths’ that juries allegedly hold, and which, allegedly, cause them not to weigh the evidence before them in a balanced way.

In simple terms, these alleged myths fall into three categories: ‘Real Rape’ is where a woman violently resists a man who takes her by force, otherwise it is questionable; that ‘Women Cry Rape’ when they regret a sexual encounter or are caught out being unfaithful and claim rape as their excuse; and that ‘Coffee is consent’ when a woman who invites a man in for coffee after a night out is signalling her willingness to have sex. Feminists, in their ideologically-driven world, deny that these are allowable ideas, and Saunders and her like are engaged in a naked attempt to condition public opinion to this feminist narrative.

Whether you believe the so-called rape myths or not. Whether you believe they even exist, has nothing to do with it. Saunders and her ilk are intent on disabusing those who would be jurors of these alleged myths because THEY believe they are wrong and THEY believe people should not think as the do. Theirs is the purest form of feminist totalitarian elitism there is. Baruch Spinosa’s assertion that a man should be able to think what he likes, and say what he thinks has no place in their world.

However, there is a Home Office study, which points out that one of the biggest risk factors now for women who are assaulted is going to a nightclub once a week, and everybody really knows that what you do, and the situations in which you put yourself, undoubtedly increase your vulnerability to certain types of crime. The man and woman in the street (and in the jury room) knows this.

He or she also knows that if you get yourself drunk you are far more likely to have accidents, and you put yourself at increased risk because your judgement is impaired and you can’t see danger as well as you can when you are sober. Ordinary men and women who become jurors instinctively realise that if you fall off a bar stool and hit your head and have a serious brain injury because you are drunk, you chose to get drunk. They know this because they may have even done something similar themselves and have kicked themselves afterwards for being so stupid.

Judges factor these sort of things into their awards for damages. It is called contributory negligence but feminists deny that women can be contributorily negligent. For them, the woman is eternally the victim. She possesses no moral agency, and no responsibility for her own self-protection and safety. All that has to lie with the man, especially in sexual encounters.

But this is too sanitary an argument. Apart from the fact that women are often as sexually predatory as men, the ordinary man and woman knows that you cannot separate legal responsibility from moral responsibility, especially moral responsibility for one’s own wellbeing and safety, but that is what feminists like Saunders do.

Saunders is part of a campaign that is wilfully seeking to influence what goes on behind the doors of the jury room by changing public opinion about this on the basis of utterly simplistic, feminist-driven arguments. It’s as simple as that. She is seeking to extend her influence beyond the locked door of the jury room in order to get conviction rates up. This has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with dogma, ideology, and the numbers game. (Perhaps she has longer term aspirations to be a darling of the left in politics? The proof of that pudding might yet to be in the eating.)

Saunders is seeking to desecrate the jury room, which must be kept sacrosanct. Trial by one’s peers who reflect the views and mores of the common man, in the context of the times in which they and the accused live, isn’t a perfect system – far from it, but it is the best we’ve got. It has been the defence of the common man against abuse of power since Henry II created it in the twelfth century, and no holder of high office in our land today should even dare to interfere with it. Yet Saunders is doing just that.

The jury in a rape trial is a man’s last defence against the witch hunt in which the authorities are undoubtedly engaged – let’s face it and say it out loud – against men. Interfering with the jury is all part of the current rape culture whipped up by feminist ideologues intent on to de-stabilising society by creating a toxic climate of fear in women, so as to belittle men, and bring them under feminist control. And all because of their blind and unwavering belief that patriarchy has allegedly disadvantaged women for centuries. (it is all nonsense of course, but a lie told often enough becomes the truth.)

The head of the Crown Prosecution Service in a civilised nation like Britain, a bastion of freedom against tyranny and totalitarianism, must be – and must be seen to be, utterly impartial in the exercise of this vitally important role. But no. Alison Saunders is politicised. She is campaigning to end alleged rape myths by seeking to influence juries (and police officers too, it seems from Sir Bernard Hogan Howe’s utterances) and, therefore, she cannot be impartial. This should scare all of us.

I’m not saying that Sir Bernard Hogan Howe is part of the feminist cadre who are driving this agenda. He may, of course, just be playing a longer game, saying the right words, keeping his job (because he’d soon lose it if he spoke out against this) whilst maintaining a more even-handed approach in practice. I’d like to think so. I’d like to think that he remembers the oath he himself would have taken on first becoming a constable: to exercise his duty ‘without fear or favour’. We’ll see.